Agreed. Myanmar has been at civil war since WWII. The Tatmadaw viewed Arakan muslims as enemies for decades before Facebook. In the 1980s they had policies against them. And that's just one conflict in Myanmar. The Tatmadaw has been killing Shan, Karen, and other ethnic groups for 70 years. The Karen conflict is one of the longest running conflicts in the world. They're bombing Karen and Sagaing villages right now. Facebook is inconsequential to Myanmar's bloody politics.
It's true there are problems with Facebook. But without Facebook the Tatmadaw would still have laws against Rohingya, still have a policy of driving them out, still would engage in fighting ARSA, still would fund and promote groups like Ma Ba Tha, etc.
The conflict in Myanmar isn't a civil war any more than the conflict of the USA between settlers and natives was a civil war.
The Myanmar (Bamar), Karen, Shan, etc populations were all there before the British drew the borders of 'Burma.' The conflict goes back way farther than WWII. The main difference now is that the Myanmar are winning.
The conflicts exist along ethnic lines, but all major armed ethnic groups had formed a government together at end of WWII, and even today many of the groups openly support a federal union.
Settlers and natives has nothing to do with it. All the major armed ethnic peoples existed in Myanmar since before WWII. The “settlers” were the British and they left.
I am not convinced this ever happened in any meaningful sense. As you note, it turned into armed conflict almost immediately. This was a British-induced transient state that was unable to sustain itself in the region.
The “settlers” were the British and they left.
The Myanmar state/people are also colonizers/conquerors. You don't need to come across an ocean to see territory that you dont control and decide to try to take control by force. Facebook and ethno-nationalism are simply new tools in a long-running conflict.
Comments
Agreed. Myanmar has been at civil war since WWII. The Tatmadaw viewed Arakan muslims as enemies for decades before Facebook. In the 1980s they had policies against them. And that's just one conflict in Myanmar. The Tatmadaw has been killing Shan, Karen, and other ethnic groups for 70 years. The Karen conflict is one of the longest running conflicts in the world. They're bombing Karen and Sagaing villages right now. Facebook is inconsequential to Myanmar's bloody politics.
It's true there are problems with Facebook. But without Facebook the Tatmadaw would still have laws against Rohingya, still have a policy of driving them out, still would engage in fighting ARSA, still would fund and promote groups like Ma Ba Tha, etc.
The conflict in Myanmar isn't a civil war any more than the conflict of the USA between settlers and natives was a civil war.
The Myanmar (Bamar), Karen, Shan, etc populations were all there before the British drew the borders of 'Burma.' The conflict goes back way farther than WWII. The main difference now is that the Myanmar are winning.
The conflicts exist along ethnic lines, but all major armed ethnic groups had formed a government together at end of WWII, and even today many of the groups openly support a federal union.
Settlers and natives has nothing to do with it. All the major armed ethnic peoples existed in Myanmar since before WWII. The “settlers” were the British and they left.
I am not convinced this ever happened in any meaningful sense. As you note, it turned into armed conflict almost immediately. This was a British-induced transient state that was unable to sustain itself in the region.
The Myanmar state/people are also colonizers/conquerors. You don't need to come across an ocean to see territory that you dont control and decide to try to take control by force. Facebook and ethno-nationalism are simply new tools in a long-running conflict.